At a recent family event, the person I was talking with deliberately identified themselves as a “progressive”.
It seemed odd to me that this person felt the need to qualify their ideological position. Based on his choice of words and a few popular socio-political slogans dropped in between them, his position was clear enough.
It’s how things are. Although there was polite disagreement, I didn’t fall in line with the controlling socio-political narrative. Consequently, I was treated as dim-witted and ignorant.
I even attempted to shift topics, mentioning that my father had passed away in March, but that was only met with silence and indifference.
I wasn’t hurt or at all that surprised. In other non-face to face conversations a lack of respect and sense of superiority has always tainted his participation in our conversations. In this instance, however, he came across as arrogant. Even if he was making a strong effort to conceal contempt for my questions and tentative conclusions, it was clear that my educated theological position was considered unscientific and therefore, illegitimate; of no value.
I was curious about why he was comfortable with dismissing my theologically trained position, and yet confident about his own knowledge of theology; mostly sentimental fragments of information, drawn from his youthful association with a church .
I walked away with the strong impression that he was uninterested in my position. He appeared hypocritical and prejudiced against anything a thinking Christian might have to say or offer.
This is nothing new. It’s a bit like what G.K Chesterton experienced at the turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
Experiences which lead him to write observations like this:
‘In the Catholic twelfth century, in the philosophic eighteenth century, the direction may have been a good or a bad one, men may have differed more or less about how far they went, and in what direction, but about the direction they did in the main agree, and consequently they had the genuine sensation of progress. But it is precisely about the direction that we disagree. Whether the future excellence lies in more law or less law, in more liberty or less liberty; whether property will be finally concentrated or finally cut up; whether sexual passion will reach its sanest in an almost virgin intellectualism or in a full animal freedom; whether we should love everybody with Tolstoy, or spare nobody with Nietzsche;— these are the things about which we are actually fighting most.’ (Heretics, 1901, pp.15-17)[i]
Chesterton falls into three categories. Insightfully relevant: elements readers cannot help but agree with. Intensely relevant: the wordy elements that unsettle even the most devoted of his fans. Irritatingly relevant: elements that make a whole lot of sense, but would be cast aside because they speak too loudly against certain predominant socio-political agendas.
Reading Chesterton is a lot like reading Jean Bethke Elshtain, Albert Camus, Hannah Arendt, or the anti-Nazi theologians Karl Barth or Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Their works are better savoured, than rapidly devoured.
They’re part of a movement and a counter-movement. Each unsettling us as we are directed in heart, thought and attitude towards something not of this world – pointing us to the God who, in the world through covenant and Jesus Christ, speaks to humanity from outside humanity. Humanity can never speak this Word to itself or by itself. It can only speak God’s Word in reference to where, when, how, who and what, God has first chosen to speak it. God’s Word; His grace and law comes to us – encounters us. It’s possible to say that genuine progress is framed and protected by law, but brought to life by grace.
Like conservatives, progressives don’t own the concepts of progress, tolerance, emancipation, compassion, enlightenment, grace or even charity. No creature, without the Creator, can truly claim them, or truly offer them, without eventually perverting progress, turning it into a lordless and tyrannical task-master instead of a servant.
As Chesterton said,
‘Progress, properly understood, has, indeed, a most dignified and legitimate meaning. But as used in opposition to precise moral ideals, it is ludicrous. So far from it being the truth that the ideal of progress is to be set against that of ethical or religious finality, the reverse is the truth. Nobody has any business to use the word “progress” unless he has a definite creed and a cast-iron code of morals. Nobody can be progressive without being doctrinal. For progress by its very name indicates a direction; and the moment we are in the least doubtful about the direction, we become in the same degree doubtful about the progress. Never perhaps since the beginning of the world has there been an age that had less right to use the word “progress” than we […] It is not merely true that the age which has settled least what is progress is this “progressive” age. It is, moreover, true that the people who have settled least what progress is, are the most “progressive” people in it. The ordinary mass, the men who have never troubled about progress, might be trusted perhaps to progress.’ (ibid)
In sum, you don’t have to be a progressive, to be for progress.
[i] Chesterton. G.K. 1901, Heretics Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Ed. (pp, 15-17).
8 thoughts on “You Don’t Have To Be A Progressive, To Be For Progress”
I’ve tended to have a different response to what I tend to view as “Regressives” who fancy themselves as “progressive”.
Their support of near-infanticide is a regress into ancient paganism. Their belief in macroevolution was suggested by Anaximander, hardly a new idea. Their celebration of deviant sexual behavior is another regress into practices that existed for most of recorded history. Their confiscatory tax schemes were one of the reasons Americans fought a war for independence hundreds of years now past. Their regress towards Orwellian statism resembles Plato’s Republic in many ways. Their oppression of religion is regressing back toward ancient Rome than towards more liberty. Their worship of the environment resembles any number of ancient pagan nature-worshippers.
I’m still waiting for them to explain how any of their regressive ideas are at all novel or an improvement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regression is good way to look at it. Taxation being a great starting point. Closely followed by laws being past without representation. I think there’s evidence to suggest that a neo-feudal autocracy exists in America.(e.g.: SOCTUS last month – although how unlike rulings handed down under fascist rule that was, remains to be seen. In any case a precedent is set).
I think Chesterton’s point highlighted the fact that progressives move all over the place, almost like a drunk man leading a blind one. Conservatives aren’t innocent here, but progressives seem to blurr the distinction between progress (verb) and progressive (noun).There’s also an abundance of pathos, very little ethos or logos, which is why campaigns of defamation, and propaganda, against all who disagree, are generally applied. The problem is in how successful those campaigns are – people are quick to jump to conclusions. Heaven help any who disagree on reasonable grounds and then have their words misconstrued.
Chesterton had an interesting sense of humour and I think he’s looking at progressive ideology through it. The premise of Luke Wilson’s comedy, ‘Idiocracy,’ illustrated how progressive ideology leads to a regressive existence, I’m pretty sure Chesterton would have applauded it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup, emotion is the moving target by which such persons are led every which way. I just today attempted to dialogue with an atheistic homosexual apologist whose moral guide was “empathy”, which he (not surprisingly) is incapable of feeling towards any who do not share his worldview. I attempted to point out the arbitrariness and subjectivity of such an approach to ethics but, like most Regressives, he constantly changed the subject to avoid having to engage the arguments presented to him (it seems like liberalism is a form of ideological ADD, where members are incapable of maintaining attention on anything that undermines their worldview).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Love this. You have caused me to add “Heretics” to my reading list.
Life is fascinating. When the smoke has cleared, it seems that intelligence and education remain in the service of belief. If one’s presuppositional beliefs are untrue, all of the intelligence and education in the world will still land one in a destructive place. Throw in arrogance and academic peer pressure and you often get a Progressive.
(At least academic peer pressure is now not as much of an obstacle for followers of Jesus.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. Heretics is not as good as Orthodoxy. It has a similar depth, though. Orthodoxy, to me, just flows better.